Newt Gingrich said that conservatives will have to accept marriage equality after three more states this year voted to allow same sex marriage and more will likely do the same in the 2014 election.

The former Speaker of the House said he didn’t expect gay rights to become the “wave” issue it has, but that he can accept the difference between a marriage in a church and a legal document, reported Huffington Post.

Marriage equality exists today. It existed yesterday. And 100 years before that.

I’m not bothered about John Doe being straight, gay, confused, bisexual, asexual, or acrobatic. If he wishes to marry a female he can have at it and equality with every other marriage in recorded history will be instantaneous and automatic.

But John Doe’s desire to ‘marry’ Joe Sixpack is an impossibility because marriage already has a definition and John/Joe ain’t it.

Newt has a history. Affairs, divorces. Caving to clinton after his good early start in the House. And lack of moral principles.

I was a Santorum supporter. Santorum ran SECOND to Romney, Newt ran third. Rick might have beaten Romney if Romney hadn’t managed to demonize him so thoroughly, while Newt stayed in the race just long enough to ensure a Romney win—even though it was evident much earlier that he had no chance to win himself.

That was hard to predict. Sarah Palin and Jim Robinson evidently decided that Newt was the best bet to edge out Romney. At the moment they threw their support to Newt, that looked like it might be true—but it didn’t last long.

Rick was not a perfect candidate, but he was much better than any of the others who were in the running.

No big surprise that Newt Gingrich now lectures the GOP (and, presumably, conservatives) to ‘accept’ ‘gay marriage’. That recognizing the fact that states are allowing same-sex couples to be legally ‘married’ is one thing but ‘accepting’ it in any way other than as an immoral aberration of God-ordained marriage is something else. Newt is being ‘pragmatic’ and likely not intending to run for office as a Republican so he can now throw conservative values out the window. A RINO is as a RINO does.

And then our oh so progressive social workers will go out of their way to place foster children and adoptions with gay couples, because after all, they can't really have a family unless they take someone else’s kids. Look for the process of severing parental rights to speed up to make more kids available to these new “families.”

35
posted on 12/20/2012 3:20:56 PM PST
by Teotwawki
(For a person to get a thing without paying for it, another must pay for it without getting it.)

I will never accept the concept of two people of the same sex, “marring” each other and becoming one. Two people of the same sex will never constitute a couple. At the most, they will be a pair. Otherscan do as it pleases them, but I will never accept it.

Fig Newton is a charlatan who has drunk too much Potomac water. Marriage is one man and one woman. You can call the sky a different color. Yet we all know it’s blue. Same with marriage. ESAD Figgy RINO.

38
posted on 12/20/2012 3:21:49 PM PST
by VRWC For Truth
(Roberts has perverted the Constitution)

When my wife and I were first married, she continued her work as a costume maker for a few years. Of course costumes are used in the theater, and a huge percentage of the people in the theater are - gay.

The funniest thing to me was the homosexual “couples.” I never saw one that wasn't ‘husband’ and ‘wife.’ Whether male or female, there was always one that was clearly the ‘husband’ and one that was clearly the ‘wife.’

So when I hear these gay activists going on about how, “they are just like us” my thought is always, “yes you are, but you are totally confused.” Why a man would want another man to act and behave like a wife - when he could have an actual wife, is beyond comprehension. Ditto for a woman choosing to have another woman act like a man and take care of her, when she could have an actual man, is equally stupid.

If two gay guys both acted like husbands, or two gay women both acted like wives - maybe it could be called homosexual marriage. But right now all it can be called is confused and mixed-up as hell people play acting.

No matter how wholesome you were going in, you cannot spend a significant portion of your life in academia without it horribly scarring your soul in some way, if not actually crippling your soul. And anyone who says people must accept the unspeakable perversion of gay marriage and its unceasing attacks on them and the traditional institution of holy matrimony, is about as morally scarred and crippled as you can get. There's no fixing it, except by Divine intervention, and there's no way that man ever belongs in the White House.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.